Philosophical Quarterly 58 (230):97-107 (2008)
Possible-worlds talk obscures, rather than clariﬁes, the debate about haecceitism. In this paper I distinguish haecceitism and anti-haecceitism from other doctrines that sometimes go under those names. Then I defend the claim that there are no non-tendentious deﬁnitions of ‘haecceitism’ and ‘anti-haecceitism’ using possible-worlds talk. That is, any deﬁnition of ‘haecceitism’ using possible-worlds talk depends, for its correctness, on a substantive theory of the nature of possible worlds. This explains why using possible-worlds talk when discussing haecceitism causes confusion: if the parties to the discussion presuppose different theories of the nature of possible worlds, then they will mean diﬀerent things by ‘haecceitism’.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
Primitive Thisness and Primitive Identity.Robert Merrihew Adams - 1979 - Journal of Philosophy 76 (1):5-26.
On Modal Logics Which Enrich First-Order S5.Harold T. Hodes - 1984 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 13 (4):423 - 454.
Citations of this work BETA
Possible Worlds and the Objective World.Jeffrey Sanford Russell - 2015 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 90 (2):389-422.
Similar books and articles
Haecceitism and Anti-Haecceitism in Leibniz's Philosophy.John O'Leary-Hawthorne & J. A. Cover - 1996 - Noûs 30 (1):1-30.
Particles and the Perversely Philosophical Schoolchild: Rigid Designation, Haecceitism and Statistics.Anna Maidens - 1998 - Teorema: International Journal of Philosophy 17 (1):75-87.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads191 ( #22,659 of 2,163,870 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #129,223 of 2,163,870 )
How can I increase my downloads?